[Public] Why I do not invite or encourage combative debate in my journal

[kniteracy]

My journal is not a forum for political or social debate. I am pretty clear about that. The short reason for this is that I do not like debating. The other short reason is that this is my little corner of the LJ universe, and I get to say what is and isn't acceptable here. If you're interested in the long version, I invite you to read on.

Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.

I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.


Tell us what you didn't post yesterday, Harper....

Yesterday, my friend earthmystic posted a link to an article from Beliefnet that drew a correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. The article is here, if you want to read it, but please be aware that it may offend people across every stripe of the political spectrum.

Although I found this article interesting, I felt its controversial conclusions would upset people and that they might not be able to keep their opinions to themselves or start debates or express their outrage in their own journals rather than attacking me in mine. So I didn't post it. Because, you see, this is the kind of argument I wanted to avoid:

Me: *posts article*
Reader 1: *gets offended and posts an angry, reactive comment in my journal about how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.*
Me: *feels like crap because I offended someone*
Me: *tries to diffuse argument by noting that it was presented to provoke thought and not anger*
R1: *asks me to come up with other examples that the conclusions reached by this fellow are TRUE, or apologise for having posted it in the first place, since it was clearly a Lie Lie Lie, completely avoids the thought vs. anger comment, because his (or her) "debate" does not have anything to do with anger, despite the fact that he (or she) is speaking provocatively and accusingly to me*
Me: *wants to hide under the couch*
Me: *has no desire to spend all day searching around for obscure proof for an article I posted because it was thought provoking, not because I wished to spend the rest of the day "debating" its conclusions with someone who requires that I present chapter-and-verse-style proof for every single point made therein*
Me: *Says as much*
R1: *accuses me of being stupid/wimpy/wrong/a liar/unwilling to play the game he (or she: this subject matter actually incenses lots of women, too) wants to play, plus bonus damning to hell if R1 is religious*
R1: *Says that if I am not willing to provide "proof" of my "assertions" (which I didn't actually make) then I am not worthy as a person, stalks off my friends list in a huff because he (or she) is sooooo angry because I won't let him (or her) provoke me*

Yes, that's an extreme example. I know, however, that we have seen arguments like this take place all over the net, particularly on USENET, where such abuse (yes, I said abuse) disguised as debate exists in such volume that I simply don't go there anymore. I know how it feels to be verbally hammered at until I am reluctant to express or present my opinions at all, thank you: I was married to that for eight years and I prefer not to relive those experiences now that I have a better life. For those people to whom this kind of behaviour is sport, who just think it's fun to wind other people up, I have absolutely no consideration or respect, particularly if they choose to engage in provoking me after I have specifically said I have no desire to debate or be provoked. Period.

I hope that I will not offend half my friendslist when I say that the worst offenders, with regard to provoking for sport, really tend to be self-declared American libertarians. My ex was one such, and the way he shouted people down and alpha-dogged his way through arguments, breezily making up statistics as he went, shocked and offended me more than once when he did it to other people. When he did it to me, well. I shut the fuck up, I'll tell you that much. I have seen this from the other side: I know that people take pleasure in treating other people this way when they "debate" with them. I am not interested in feeling the way I did when I had to endure that kind of nit-picking, soul-killing, back-it-up-with-verifiable-facts-from-a-source-that-I-trust-and-I-get-to-pick-the-source kind of barrage. Ever again.

I have political and social opinions. They are what Americans would call 'liberal' and what people anywhere else would call 'socialist,' and probably *gasp* 'pacifist' as well, fairly firmly rooted, have been evolving for my whole life, and I believe what I believe, as do most of us. There was a time in my youth where I expressed these opinions openly, and then there was a time in my adulthood where I was made to understand that expressing my opinions would get me at the very least belittled and made fun of in front of other people, if not called an idiot outright. So I clammed up. Now, I live with someone who supports and understands these beliefs that I have held and nurtured for all these years, and so I have occasionally run into some problems with a few people who knew me before I felt it was safe to talk about what I think, even in the very bland sense of, say, posting a link to an article I enjoyed. I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do. That's an assumption many people seem to make. So when people see political and social liberalism coming out of my journal, maybe they're shocked and offended that a nice, smart, talented person like me could hold such views; I don't know. But because my friends are my friends and they understand me, even the ones I have serious political differences with don't feel the need to make our relationship all about that. I could name names here and let you know who those wonderful people, with whom I disagree on serious political and social points but who I would still do anything for, are, but I'd leave somebody out and I think they know who they are, anyway.

I have kept this journal for four years. In that time, with a friendslist that hovers around three hundred people on occasion, only two people have left my friends list because they did not seem comfortable with my reluctance to debate political points in my journal. Both people were kept on my friends list for a long time after they dropped me, because some people make decisions rashly and then feel bad about them later. For that reason alone, I feel like it's a pretty simple and easy-to-follow rule, particularly since I tend to note it gently every time I post or link to something that might incite screaming political arguments. I have set this rule. This is my journal. You are here because I invited you to be here, and there will have been a reason for that. Please don't make our relationship all about politics and debate. There are places you can go online (like USENET), where people love to scream at one another. This is not one of those places.

So to sum up, it's fine to disagree with me: I'm OK with that. What I don't like are combative debates in my journal or anywhere else that make me feel terrible. I don't care if you enjoy those things: getting off on making me feel terrible without my consent is not OK. Dropping me from your friendslist if you think you can't abide by this simple rule is OK. I will probably keep you on my list for awhile after that in case you decide you made a mistake. Trolling my journal after you've dropped me, just to add a snarky comment or try to provoke me for sport now and then, is not OK.

Comments

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

I've had this same issue with a good friend's SO who has a habit of jumping on me/others on journals, and going "And? and? and?" a lot, crowing when he thinks he's got you on a logical technicality, flaming but not liking being flamed back, and is generally a jerk. Which is an annoying impression to have, as I've never met him irl, but he's upset me and mine far too often. I don't understand why debate can't be something like, Point; questions point; has different pov; gosh, I don't agree but that's interesting.

I think my SO discusses like that, that's why we get on. It was a very strange thing to find out that some of my friends list found even that combative/upsetting because he holds very different opinions on stuff.

(sorry, a bit rambly.)

[telynor.livejournal.com]

That is jerky behaviour, and I can't stand it. Probably because filceolaire is respectful of my opinions, we can talk about politics and social issues without filing our teeth to points. ;)

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

*smile*

Thanks for helping me with the last paragraph there.

[aunty_marion]

I think you've just summed up exactly why I don't engage in that sort of debate at all ever fullstop.

*trembles in fear*

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Amazingly, people who argue like this believe people who don't like to do it must be weak, unsure of their opinions, and possibly stupid. It blows my mind. I've always found people who take pleasure in arguments like this to be scary. Which I guess is what they want to be, since their goal appears to be tramp and conquer.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Agreed absolutely.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the 'amen,' brother; can I get a 'hallelujah?' ;)

[highstone.livejournal.com]

Quite so, the prospect of civilised/stimulating conversation is *so* much more compelling than the other sort.

Come to think of it, I find the would-be-Hyde-Park-Corner artistes do but themselves confound - faced with noisy/aggressive folk, I am inclined to go off quietly and do the exact opposite of whatever line they are pushing...

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I think respectful discussion of difference is something that the US may be losing, or at least that's my opinion. I almost never hear two people with opposing views discussing something rationally. Talk-radio-style invective is the fashion of the day. I wouldn't want to subject you to Rush Limbaugh or Neil Boortz, but you can do a search for either of those guys to find out what kind of rhetoric I'm talking about.

Come to think of it, I find the would-be-Hyde-Park-Corner artistes do but themselves confound - faced with noisy/aggressive folk, I am inclined to go off quietly and do the exact opposite of whatever line they are pushing...

I think I'm with you on this one, too. Does that make me a rebel? ;)

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

Despite being a Christian, the prospect of other Christians being loudly and publicly evangelical outside a context in which I expect it (like, say, Church? :) ) puts me off, for similar reasons.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I tend to be put off by public evangelism of any type, and I've heard it from many different places. AMWAY comes to mind... ;-)

[silme.livejournal.com]

I'm merely curious as to why the author didn't answer his final question in the article. ;)

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I don't really know that any of us can answer that one, m'dear. ;)

Half the time I have no idea how to answer it, even when I'm staring my son in the face. 8)

[cybrcat.livejournal.com]

I'm American and libertarian, but also liberal and pacifist. I despise debate. I too have an ex (conservative republican) who gets off on political argument, and when we were together I also learned to shut the fuck up rather than endure endless confrontation with He Who Must Be Right. "Soul-killing" is exactly how it felt. When I walked away from that marriage, my sense of peacefulness and compassion breathed a huge sigh of relief. He still tries to bait me into arguing politics with him, and I indulge him on occasion, but at least now I can hang up the phone when he gets belligerent.

Now that I'm living with a conservative socialist ex-military Brit, well, we have our differences. But we respect each other's opinions and tend not to discuss politics often. There are so many other interesting things to talk about! When we do discuss these things, he genuinely tries to understand my point of view, which is a refreshing change from outright dismissal.

Interestingly, I have some good political discussions with my beloved friend kierly, who is very conservative and libertarian. Despite our huge differences, we've learned to talk about politics in a way that honors both of our views, and to find the common ground. That's the way I wish it worked with everyone.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

It's amazing to consider how much freer I feel now than I did three and a half years ago or so. When I first began talking to earthmystic about filceolaire, he said something along the lines of, "Forgive me for saying this, but these are the actions that someone who loves you takes. Has no one ever treated you like this before?" The answer was no, of course. Being loved is da bomb.

[jhayman.livejournal.com]

First, your position is also mine: My LJ is a place for me to post my opinions, thoughts and feelings. I welcome an opportunity to reconsider them, but do not care to debate them.

Second, thank you for this article. It's very thought-provoking and I plan to forward it to some folks who work in the sexual health field. While pregnancy prevention is preferable, it doesn't always happen (50% of ALL pregnancies are unplanned).

I'd also add that in addition to being single and poor, sociological research has pointed to having a father figure (with a real relationship) as correlated with preventing for boys being involved in crime and overall the astonishingly simple, sitting down to dinner as a family and talking most evenings of the week.

And I'll add correlation doesn't equal causation, but boy it makes you think.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that you enjoyed this article, particularly because I know you're in the healthcare field. It really made me think, too. :-)

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

And from what looks like another quarter:
I'm a lot more feisty and even tho I crave approval, (as do you I notice), I'm not one to go and hide from disagreement, and have been accused of being quite disagreeable for it.

I get a lot of flack for not backing down in arguments- for standing my ground and speaking my mind, even if popular opinion (in whatever form) is against me.

But still, there's a difference between vigorously defending what you believe and holding someone to a high factual and logical standard if you are to be convinced, and trying to force your opinion down someone's throat.
Alot of the bullying you describe is something I fling right back.
(But I will accept that I get some cache from being big and ferocious looking-that helps me be able to get away with it)

My final stance on arguing these things comes in as something like: "I don't NEED you to agree with me about everything, but if you want ME to believe what you believe, you've got to convince me that you know better than I do."

And when confronted occasionally with a jerk who simply can't believe that I think (whatever it is they don't think I should think) and they're saying something like "HOW can you possibly BELIEVE/THINK such a thing?" I have a really great snarky response when it's obvious that they're more interested in domination than debate:

I blink, look at them, and say "Like *this*".

Sometimes it takes a few tries before they finally get it. When they do, if they're interested, they can *try* to convince me, but usually when they realise that I am not only very comfortable not believing as they do, but that there's nothing they can do about it (short of truly convincing me), they are compelled to give up.

But contrary to my reputation I will admit that I was wrong on that rare occasion when I actually am.

Actually, it's been a very hard journey for me in the conduct of my life and my career, which inevitably found me relying on others who disagreed with which way "we" should go, because I HAVE been too willing to let people with proven BAD track records call the shots and then suffered for it, just to preserve harmony (which didn't work- surprise surprise). Which led me to the ever unpopular "being a jerk" because I finally learned to stand my ground and say "NO" to people who were leading me astray and did NOT have my best interest at heart. My problem kept being that the people with whom I've had to disagree and stand my ground kept being very popular and attractive to my other friends, which *naturally* meant that *I* was the troublemaker. sigh.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Just this once, because I know you lurve me, I'm going to reply to someone in the way I always feel like replying when I see something like this.

You said, I'm not one to go and hide from disagreement.

Just because I do not like debate does not mean I'm a lily-livered coward who hides from disagreement. I'm just sayin'.

[mdlbear]

Good post -- I'm in full agreement. I started blocking anonymous comments after I noticed that I was getting a lot of anonymous flames every time I posted something about Linux and kids (somebody out there seems to think that letting a kid use Linux is a form of child abuse -- go figure).

Also a terrific link; there were a couple of public-radio items about this a month or two ago. I've long been of the opinion that the public health and economic benefits of legalized abortion need to be considered; but then, I was a teenager in the 1960's before it was legal in Connecticut.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Linux is child abuse? Who knew?

Must be the penguins. ;)

I'm glad you enjoyed the article.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I don't mind argument and debate at my journal, or at other places where it's okay. I won't stand for disagreement or the Big Lie technique being used to assert that the other party has The Truth and Only The Truth. My feeling is that if a person can't tell what's argument and what's disagreement, s/he needs to be sat down for 24 hours viewing of a certain Monty Python sketch, Clockwork Orange-style.

On occasion, I find myself being drawn into argument in journals not my own. And sometimes I go too far. If it happens here (less likely, with your position being made clear), slap me with a wet salmon (so I have something to make delicious and offer back to you in apology :-)

[telynor.livejournal.com]

You know how to be respectful. Or at least you've always known how to be respectful of me. As for wet salmon, you're on. ;)

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

The only time I like debates of this sort is among good friends who don't push my buttons on purpose. I once worked with a Republican (and I am as far to the left as they go) and we would merrily debate politics. We often didn't agree, but it was done with respect and humor. There were no snide remarks, there was no pushing of buttons and there certainly no bashing of the other candidate.

I think in a journal that's not set up for political debate the owner's feelings should be respected. I do debate politics and sometimes want backup information, but I do it Salon journals or other journals that are set up for that purpose.

I have had people who were pushy, rude, and arrogant, and wanted proof of every feeling I had and I agree with you that this is your journal and disagreeing is okay, but just plain being rude isn't.

(((HUG)))

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I'm just really not much of a debator. I know what I know, I believe what I believe, and I don't get my news out of just oen book or from just one radio or television source. ;-)

*hugs*

[dancingwriter.livejournal.com]

I feel as you do--both about politics (although I'm not the pacifist I once was) and about my journal being a place where *I* make the rules and have every right to expect them to be followed. I tend to shy away from debates, too, or for proclaiming my political views among those who are unlikely to share them. Living with my father during the Nixon years taught me that....

[auryn29a.livejournal.com]

I, too, hate debate. I don't have a head for it. And I have friends who love arguing. I just can't be around them when they're in the mood to argue.

[otherdeb.livejournal.com]

I don't hate debate. Debate is a pretty civilized form of examing a problem, a concept, or an issue from many sides.

Arguing, on the other hand, often includes bullying, name-calling, trying to force one's views down another's throat, and no real examination of the facts (such as they may be) of the matter. And, since I hate bullies in general, I hate arguing that encourages them.

What I think -- not that the opinion of a school aide counts for anything more than an opinion -- is that instead of half the nonsense we were taught in school could be left aside for a good course or two in critical thinking, beginning at the high school level. Further, I think that everyone is entitled to hold whatever views he/she pleases, and I try to respect their right to do so, even when I disagree with those views.

[jslove.livejournal.com]

This article was very interesting.

I'm sure it's at least partly true. However, I am not sure what to think about it yet. I am of the in-between school, and yet I think 100:1 is too great a difference. It would be instructive, I think, to compare this to natural miscarriage rates, including post-conception but pre-implantation. (I have found those numbers very difficult to come by, perhaps in part because the question is considered very politically incorrect.) My favorite almost-relevant quote is: "a million potential christians splattered against the ceiling." (I saw it in a Rudy Rucker book.)

I don't think the debating style described applies to me. I do sometimes like to discuss controversial subjects, and have let people like that draw me into their arguments before realizing that I was wasting my time. Politeness then requires that I not tell them they are an idiot and stop talking to them, so it takes time to disengage gracefully.

(In the ancient past I certainly participated in flame wars. However, that is a young man's game, as in college student, and something would be wrong if I had still been doing that even ten years later, much less thirty. Though I may have participated in one immediately post-divorce; my mail archive doesn't go quite that far back and my recall is too murky.)

Two particular trolls from U.S. East Coast Filk Fandom come to mind. One of them attacked me in the Con Suite at Contata a month ago. Such argumentation gets very tiring. I told him I would do some research to back up my position, and furnish it to him, but on further reflection decided not to bother. After doing the research, I decided he was too full of himself and the stuff I had found would be dismissed. He could have found it in five minutes on google if he actually cared. It was easily discovered that his whole argument was based on two or three pieces of misinformation.

The people who were there will know of whom I speak. The other has a similar reputation but hangs around Conterpoints, i.e., is more likely to be found in the MD/DC area. In spite of this thread being locked, I will not mention names.

The problem with being willing to participate in such discussions is that one should never argue with an idiot; the spectators will be unable to tell the difference, since you have to argue on the idiot's level, and both of you will look equally stupid.

When I remember this, my tactic instead is to give them lots and lots of rope rather than rising to their bait. Usually they get bored and stop trying to pick a fight with me, and go harass someone else.

Peer group pressure might change their behavior, or at least remove it. Fans are, however, mostly very accepting, having experienced exclusion much of their lives, and so presenting a united front against this kind of thing seems unlikely.

I know of one much worse case who hangs around Boston cons, and not only has peer group pressure not worked on him, but he fought a restraining order in court, and it could only be obtained for one convention rather than in perpetuity. Only when we catch him red-handed molesting a young fan, and press charges, will we be able to completely remove him from the cons. Our efforts are focused on prevention rather than apprehension, however, so any such would be a partial failure; I hope it never happens.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

I have never felt that you had that kind of a combative 'discussion' style. Mostly, I enjoy my interactions with you very much. You are on my 'nice guy' list, which isn't a bad place to be. :-)

[khall.livejournal.com]

       My only problem with this idea is that other people are not as ethical as you. And would be far too tempted to post 'drive-by' flames. Where someone says something completely offensive and disrespectful and then insists it's their journal so no one has the right to create a flame war in it. And, many women are guilty of this. (Since I agree with you that men tend to be the most aggressive and bullying of arguers.) Again, this is not something I'd worry about with you. And I think from respectful decent people, your attitude of gentleness reads well and invokes a level of politeness and restraint that spares you the drama. That said, you can always turn off people's ability to comment if you don't want to allow debate about something. *smooches*

K.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Oh, and people have been banned from my journal in the past. I hope I don't have to do it again, but you know, you can only have so many rottweiler exes, neh? ;)

As for me, you're right: I'm not interested in posting something completely offensive and disrespectful and then refusing to listen when people told me what was what. Heck, I put anything that might be offensive behind a cut-tag, because I'm just that kind of girl.

[khall.livejournal.com]

       You know...I have the solution to this. Duels. That's what the problem is with this society. We've done away with duels. Now, when two people disagree, they are no longer allowed to step out onto the lawn and go at it with sabers and/or pistols at 10 paces. If we could get some laws passed, that re-instated the institution of the duel people would be much less likely to be rude when debating with someone else.:)

K.

[duality.livejournal.com]

I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do.

due to the fact that my list too has a rather broad range of friends of different social/political bents, sometimes i think i sound like a broken record when i keep telling them that if they think that group X are stupid for believing Y way, they have to realize that group X thinks the -exact- same thing about them. it's stupid really, but it seems to be so deep in our minds that most can't see the other side at all.

course this doesn't keep me from occasionally shredding the really obnoxious. like one ex who recently told me 'well if i had lots of money i'd be republican [too]...' think he still has singe marks.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

course this doesn't keep me from occasionally shredding the really obnoxious. like one ex who recently told me 'well if i had lots of money i'd be republican [too]...' think he still has singe marks.

*laugh*

--and I'm sure you're just rolling in money, because, damn. ;-)

While I do think that some political positions have a basis in economics and I do think that many things are driven by wealth, it's impossible to look around the US, particularly the southeastern US, and say that only people with lots of money are republican.

[occams_pyramid]

I know of two people whose tactic when someone dares to disagree with them is to simply repeat "Shut Up!" over and over, louder and louder and louder until the other person gives up - then they carry on preaching their opinion. One of them is well enough respected in fandom to be fan GoH at Worldcon.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

Yeah-- I've been warned. ;-)

[aprilstarchild.livejournal.com]

My dad does this--less than he used to, but he still does.

But far worse was a particular ex-boyfriend of mine. Before I started dating him I was very politically active in progressive causes. Not long after we started dating, I dropped every single one of them.

He always always always held my views to a much stricter proof than his own. He would also nitpick something relatively tiny, which meant he didn't have to argue the main point. Red herring, anyone?

I broke up with him almost three years ago. Thank GODS.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Ye gods and little fishes, what did you see in him in the first place?

[catalana.livejournal.com]

You go, girl. *grin* Seriously, it's your journal - and I like seeing whatever you choose to post. It's so annoying when people assume that just because one links to something that one agrees with it...hello, people, I teach all kinds of philosophical theories but that doesn't mean I agree with all (or any) of them. Sometimes it's just good to start thinking about the topics. *sigh* *hug*

[telynor.livejournal.com]

No. Way.

You mean some people *think* about these topics, rather than just labelling everybody who doesn't agree with them an idiot?

I. Am. Boggled.

*hugs*

G ;)

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Some people, I think, call themselves libertarians because nobody else will have them. (The libertarians, rather like anarchists, have a shortage of accredited philosophical bouncers.) This is not to endorse, reject or otherwise comment on libertarianism.

[telynor.livejournal.com]

*chuckle*

And so they all end up in fandom, because that's the only *other* group that will have them? ;-)

Please, gods, save me from USENET...